- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:04:15 -0400
- To: Joseph Hui <Joseph.Hui@exodus.net>
- Cc: "Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Joe, On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 08:10:56PM -0700, Joseph Hui wrote: > Mark, > > My take is that if RM is a requirement, then it's in -- > in the doc, in someone's face (no derogative intended) -- > regardless of what architecture style it'll turn out to be. > The architects will just have to make the style fit (RM). Am I writing in a foreign language? 8-) Do you not believe me when I say that reliable messaging is not appropriate in all styles? If you do, why would you want to put in a requirement for something that wouldn't fit? We're not talking about anything trivial here, we're talking about a fundamental feature that would have huge impacts on performance, the ability to deal with partial failure (read; brittleness), simplicity of implementation and deployment, etc.. You don't just make something like that fit by wishing it did. 8-) > Letting style-yet-to-be influence a requirement is like > letting the tail wag the dog. Sometimes it happens; > but it shouldn't be the norm, as in this case. I'd say the opposite; that driving a solution before there's an architecture is the tail wagging the dog. If we want to pick a style now, I'd be happy with that. As I've said before, there appears to be an implicit assumption that we're rebuilding OMA/CORBA. So let's just say that. If we do, then I'd accept reliable messaging as a requirement, because that style pretty much requires it. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 23:52:56 UTC